Another sad day for aviation. At the same time, still the safest form of travel by a large margin.bthttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296946,00.htmlBANGKOK, Thailand

At this rate, not all that safe when it comes to certain countries... we are seeing a really nasty rash of crashes lately from "Third World" airlines.

>At this rate, not all that safe when it comes to certain>countries... we are seeing a really nasty rash of crashes>lately from "Third World" airlines. I wouldn't call Thailand or Brazil "Third World". Besides, it wasn't long ago that we were seeing "a rash" of accidents in our "first world" countries.Dave F.

A very sad day indeed.After a career of 40 years in aircraft maintenance there is absolutely no way I will fly on a budget airline. Roger

Follow the discusion here http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=292331Dave F.

Interesting thread, Dave.Despite the "budget airlines" comments, it seems that weather and human error may have been the major factors. There is no evidence that the airline was a factor at all. If these pilots had been flying for a different airline, it is still entirely possible that the crash would have occured. It is always interesting how people often jump to the conclusion that shoddy maintenance or a pilot's nationality caused a crash, while ignoring more obvious factors.- Martin

Hi Martin,My referrence to "budget" airline has nothing to do with either nationality nor maintenance (in this particular incident). My question is simple. Why did the pilot attempt a landing even though the tower was reportedly warning of very high gusting winds. What employer pressures was the pilot under to make the landing. How well trained was the pilot in bad weather landings. This is where the "budget" tag is aimed.It's very easy to write off the incidents as pilot error, bad weather, poor ATC or whatever.I don't buy that argument.The underlying cause is possibly the cost cutting that MUST take place if a budget airline is to make a profit for it's shareholdes. Simple economics. The cheaper the airfare the greater the cost cutting and ergo the greater the risk.Just my thoghts on "budget" airlines. Not worth the risk IMHO.Roger

Firstly my condolences to all involved in any aircrash this past week.I think however most airlines pressure the pilots to 'get the job done' no matter what. Good and bad alike. Budget airlines must run close to the bones though in regards to safety, they have to cut costs somewhere.

"Budget" airlines usually mean "budget" paychecks for the employees. This, over time, can lead to very poor and hostile working conditions within the company. This can lead to a decrease in caring for the company, which leads to carelessness, which leads to accidents.I'm not suggesting that this was the case here, but history has proven that an unhappy work force will always make more mistakes than a happy one.John

>Firstly my condolences to all involved in any aircrash this>past week.>>I think however most airlines pressure the pilots to 'get the>job done' no matter what. Good and bad alike. Budget airlines>must run close to the bones though in regards to safety, they>have to cut costs somewhere.As an airline pilot and cargo pilot, I've never felt any pressure by my superiors to get the job done no matter what. I guess I've been lucky.

>"Budget" airlines usually mean "budget" paychecks for the>employees. This, over time, can lead to very poor and hostile>working conditions within the company. This can lead to a>decrease in caring for the company, which leads to>carelessness, which leads to accidents.>I'm not suggesting that this was the case here, but history>has proven that an unhappy work force will always make more>mistakes than a happy one.>>JohnWhat history do you have that is proving this? The "majors" like United, Northwest and USAirways in the US are the ones with the poor and hostile working conditions. The "budget" airline, Southwest, is the one with the higher paid pilots and "happy" work conditions. Yet they are the ones that have been putting planes into gas stations and streets. But neither did Pan Am nor Eastern crash any planes for pilot error just before they closed their doors even though the pilots were working under hostile working conditions. Instead of "history has proven," maybe "IMO" would be better.

Wow KevinAU, I sense some hostility here. So which "budget" airline do you fly for?;-) Maybe your right, maybe not. You're right that it is my opinion, of which I hope you will allow me to have. I have, however, never seen underpaid employees perform as well as fair market value paid ones in the long run. That said and being a pilot myself who has worked for meager paychecks in the past, I can say that I've never thought about running my aircraft into a gas station......even if the oil companies deserve it.John

I think you're a little too sensitive. You can certainly have an opinion, and that's just exactly what I was pointing out. That your "history" is just opinion.

"My question is simple. Why did the pilot attempt a landing even though the tower was reportedly warning of very high gusting winds"Pilots call it "get-there-itis". Some times there getting close to their legal hours or don't want the hassell of a deversion. This was partially stated as the cause of the American Airlines crash in Little Rock. A crash very similar to this crash, even down to the fact that both were MD-80'S. The pilot obviously thought it was a situation he could handle.......he was wrong. IMHODave F.

While not directly related to this topic, I've just read a good article here, http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/0...askthepilot244/ on the media's coverage of aviation accidents. Give it a read.Dave FisherCYYZP4 Prescott 3.2e 478p 800mhz 1mg CPUP4P800SE Asus Motherboard2.5 gig PC3200 DDR RAM 400MHZGeForce 7600GT/512 OC'dMaxtor 80 Gig ATA 133 HD x2WDC WD800 80 Gig HDAntec 500watt true powerSharp 19 inch LCD MonitorSaitek AV8R-01 Joystickhttp://www.jdtllc.com/images/rcv4bannersupporter.jpg